區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Peony Wong3/6/2025[2025] HKDC 938
DCCC160/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 160/2024
C [2025] HKDC 938 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 160 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I UMER-FAROOQ 2nd Defendant I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong K
Date: 4 June 2025
L L
Present: Mr MA Yu Kit, Justin, Senior Public Prosecutor (Ag.), for
M HKSAR/Director of Public Prosecutions M
Mr Edward McGuinniety, instructed by Chaudhry Solicitors,
N N
for the 2nd defendant
O Offence: [7] Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to O
pervert the course of public justice（作出一項或一連串傾向
P P
並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為）
Q Q
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The 2nd Defendant was convicted after trial of Charge 7, i.e.
C Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to pervert the course C
of public justice, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section
D D
101I(5) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221). He was jointly
E charged with the 1st and 3rd Defendants, who had pleaded guilty. E
F F
2. The 1st to 3rd Defendants have agreed that a false
G representation be made to the police that the 1st Defendant was the driver G
of a private car NA6660 (hereinafter referred to as the “Vehicle”) which
H H
was involved in a traffic accident outside West Wing of Justice Place on
I Lower Albert Road (hereinafter referred to as “the Scene”). I
J J
3. On 28th July 2023, the 3rd Defendant was the registered owner
K of the Vehicle. The 3rd Defendant, apart from being the driver in question K
when the accident occurred, had used the Vehicle when its vehicle licence
L L
has expired on 13th July 2023, and that the third party insurance does not
M cover situations where the driver does not hold a driving license or had M
been disqualified. It was also not in dispute that the 3 rd Defendant was
N N
disqualified from driving from 11th May 2023 for 6 months.
O O
4. On 28th July 2023, at around 6:50 am, the 2nd and 3rd
P P
Defendants and another male “X” left a restaurant in Central and boarded
Q the Vehicle, with the 3rd Defendant in the driver’s seat, X at the front Q
passenger seat and the 2nd Defendant at the rear passenger seat.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. At around 7 am, the Vehicle was traveling downhill and
C making a right turn on Lower Albert Road, when it suddenly swerved to C
its left onto the pedestrian pavement, and crashed onto a security kiosk of
D D
West Wing, Justice Place. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X left the
E Vehicle immediately, fled towards the direction of Wyndham Street, and E
boarded a taxi at Queen’s Road Central at around 7:05 am.
F F
G 6. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X alighted the taxi outside a G
carpark at Ka Wai Chuen in Hung Hom (hereinafter referred to as “the
H H
Carpark”). The 2nd Defendant and X waited at the Carpark, while the 3rd
I Defendant went home. Not long after, the 3rd Defendant and his younger I
brother the 1st Defendant joined the 2nd Defendant and X at the Carpark.
J J
After a brief discussion amongst those present, the 1st to 3rd Defendants and
K X left the Carpark together. K
L L
7. The 1st and 2nd Defendants then boarded a taxi near the
M Carpark. The taxi reached Ice House Street near the Hong Kong Diamond M
Exchange Building, and the 1st and 2nd Defendants alighted. They walked
N N
towards Lower Albert Road, with the 1st Defendant walking ahead. After
O walking for 3 minutes, the 2nd Defendant made a U-turn and walked O
towards Queen’s Road Central.
P P
Q 8. The 1st Defendant then approached the police on Lower Albert Q
Road in the vicinity of the Scene. The 1st Defendant made the
R R
representation to the police officers present that he had driven the Vehicle
S from his residence in Hung Hom to Lan Kwai Fong in the early hours of S
that day and had parked the Vehicle in Lan Kwai Fong, that he was the
T T
driver of the Vehicle, and had lost control of the Vehicle at the time of the
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
accident. He also stated that he had fled after the accident, and had now
C come back to face the consequences. C
D D
9. Later that day, the police arrested the 1st Defendant for the
E offences of dangerous driving and criminal damage. The police took the E
1st Defendant to the 1st and 3rd Defendants’ residence for house search. The
F F
3rd Defendant was not at home, and the key of the Vehicle was found at the
G house search. G
H H
10. The 2nd Defendant surrendered to the police on 29th July 2023.
I He was arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The 3 rd I
Defendant surrendered on 31st July 2023, and was arrested for conspiracy
J J
to pervert the course of justice and traffic related offences.
K K
11. I have found in the Reasons of Verdict that there was a
L L
common purpose, agreement or understanding between the 1st and 3rd
M Defendants, that the 1st Defendant shall return to the Scene and claim to be M
the driver at the time of the accident, and that the 2nd Defendant’s role was
N N
to accompany the 1st Defendant on the taxi and to a location in the vicinity
O of the Scene, so as to guide the 1st Defendant who was not present at the O
accident. The 3rd Defendant’s role was to lay low and avoid attending the
P P
Scene, as can be demonstrated by not boarding the taxi back to Central,
Q and not being at his residence when the police arrived later that day, and Q
leaving the Vehicle’s key at his home.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
12. I was also satisfied that the 2nd Defendant, together with the
C other Defendants, intended the actions and conduct of the Defendants to C
have the tendency to pervert the course of public justice, i.e. to allow the
D D
3rd Defendant to escape sanction for his criminal behaviour which includes
E the dangerous driving which caused the accident. E
F F
The 2nd Defendant’s Antecedent Statement and Mitigation
G G
13. The 2nd Defendant is 23 years old and has a clear record. He
H H
is a transport worker, and had been educated to Form 6. He lives with his
I parents. I
J J
14. It is submitted that the 2nd Defendant’s involvement is
K comparatively minor, and the Court is urged to consider the 2 nd K
Defendant’s youth, his clear record, his representation of Hong Kong in the
L L
Hong Kong Hockey Team, and his detention under police custody from
M 29th to 31st July 2023 after his arrest. M
N N
Sentencing Considerations
O O
15. The Court has considered all mitigation and mitigation
P P
documents, the authorities submitted, the 2 Defendant’s clear record, and
nd
Q his surrender to the police. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. I have considered both authorities submitted by the
C Prosecution and the comments from the Defence. The basic principles of C
sentencing this type of offence is stated in AG v Yeung Kwong Chi [1989]
D D
1 HKLR 266. It was held that the normal sentence for an attempt to pervert
E the course of justice was one of immediate imprisonment. In order to E
justify any non-immediate custodial sentence, abnormal circumstances
F F
must be present. Although clear record, good family background, a single
G fall from grace, the likelihood of leading a blameless life in future were all G
proper matters for consideration, they are by no means abnormal when put
H H
in the context of a crime of this nature so as to justify a suspended sentence.
I I
17. In the present case, the Defendants’ agreement if successful,
J J
had the result of not only allowing the 3rd Defendant to escape from his
K responsibility concerning Charges 1 (dangerous driving), 3 (driving an K
unlicensed vehicle), 5 (failing to stop) and 6 (failing to report), but also to
L L
escape from the liability for Charges 2 (driving while disqualified) and 4
M (using motor vehicle without third party insurance), with Charge 2 leading M
to an almost inevitable immediate custodial sentence. This was the reason
N N
for which they had engaged in the offence involving Charge 7.
O O
18. The misrepresentation was a carefully thought out and
P P
detailed plan. Although there is no indication as to the amount of police
Q manpower wasted on this misguided investigation direction concerning the Q
accident, it is to be expected that heavy input was made into investigating
R R
an accident involving an unexplained car crash at Justice Place.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
19. The Prosecution submitted the case of Secretary for Justice v
C Lee Ying Tung [2023] 3 HKLRD 667, which was a review of the sentence C
filed by the Secretary for Justice. The respondent’s husband was
D D
intercepted by the police while leaving their apartment, and alerted the
E respondent that there were police approaching, and not to open the door. E
Several minutes later, a bag of dangerous drugs was thrown out of the
F F
window from the apartment. The respondent was charged with perverting
G the course of public justice, and was sentenced to 84 days’ imprisonment G
after a guilty plea. It was stated that the general starting point for providing
H H
false account to the police investigating a serious offence is between 2 and
I 3 years; and for concealment of evidence, the same bracket of 2 to 3 years’ I
starting point applies. Upon review, the starting point of 3 years was
J J
adopted.
K K
20. I am of the view that, despite the present case having the
L L
element of providing a false account to the investigating police, although
M the offence involved crashing into Justice Place, it was not intended as a M
provocation to the authorities. It was no more than the 3rd Defendant losing
N N
control of the Vehicle and thereby committing the act of dangerous driving.
O As such, although it cannot be seen as a minor case, it is not very high in O
the spectrum of seriousness for this type of offence. Therefore I do not
P P
think a starting point as high as 2 to 3 years for this Charge is warranted.
Q Q
21. Of the culpability between the Defendants, I have found that
R R
rd
the 3 Defendant was the mastermind of the plan. But that is not to say
S that the 2nd Defendant should be dealt with by sentences other than S
immediate custodial sentence. I accept that he has nothing to gain from the
T T
offence. Yet despite his good record and background, he should know the
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
seriousness, if not the penalty, of tampering with the course of justice. I
C do not agree that his role was relatively minor, as his role was a crucial one, C
st
without which it cannot be ensured that the 1 Defendant would be able to
D D
approach the vicinity of the Scene and make the intended false
E representation to the police. E
F F
22. The Defendants’ plan involved a good deal of premeditation
G and planning, and cannot be acts of impulse or the result of lack of G
consequential thinking. I am of the view that there are no abnormal or
H H
exceptional circumstances justifying imposing anything other than an
I immediate custodial sentence. CSO and suspended sentence are therefore I
not suitable options.
J J
K 23. I shall therefore adopt the starting point of 16 months for K
Charge 7. The 2nd Defendant had been convicted after trial. I do not find
L L
any reason in the mitigation that would justify lowering of the starting point.
M The 2nd Defendant shall be sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
O O
P P
Q ( Peony Wong ) Q
Deputy District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 160/2024
C [2025] HKDC 938 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 160 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I UMER-FAROOQ 2nd Defendant I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong K
Date: 4 June 2025
L L
Present: Mr MA Yu Kit, Justin, Senior Public Prosecutor (Ag.), for
M HKSAR/Director of Public Prosecutions M
Mr Edward McGuinniety, instructed by Chaudhry Solicitors,
N N
for the 2nd defendant
O Offence: [7] Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to O
pervert the course of public justice（作出一項或一連串傾向
P P
並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為）
Q Q
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The 2nd Defendant was convicted after trial of Charge 7, i.e.
C Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to pervert the course C
of public justice, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section
D D
101I(5) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221). He was jointly
E charged with the 1st and 3rd Defendants, who had pleaded guilty. E
F F
2. The 1st to 3rd Defendants have agreed that a false
G representation be made to the police that the 1st Defendant was the driver G
of a private car NA6660 (hereinafter referred to as the “Vehicle”) which
H H
was involved in a traffic accident outside West Wing of Justice Place on
I Lower Albert Road (hereinafter referred to as “the Scene”). I
J J
3. On 28th July 2023, the 3rd Defendant was the registered owner
K of the Vehicle. The 3rd Defendant, apart from being the driver in question K
when the accident occurred, had used the Vehicle when its vehicle licence
L L
has expired on 13th July 2023, and that the third party insurance does not
M cover situations where the driver does not hold a driving license or had M
been disqualified. It was also not in dispute that the 3 rd Defendant was
N N
disqualified from driving from 11th May 2023 for 6 months.
O O
4. On 28th July 2023, at around 6:50 am, the 2nd and 3rd
P P
Defendants and another male “X” left a restaurant in Central and boarded
Q the Vehicle, with the 3rd Defendant in the driver’s seat, X at the front Q
passenger seat and the 2nd Defendant at the rear passenger seat.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. At around 7 am, the Vehicle was traveling downhill and
C making a right turn on Lower Albert Road, when it suddenly swerved to C
its left onto the pedestrian pavement, and crashed onto a security kiosk of
D D
West Wing, Justice Place. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X left the
E Vehicle immediately, fled towards the direction of Wyndham Street, and E
boarded a taxi at Queen’s Road Central at around 7:05 am.
F F
G 6. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X alighted the taxi outside a G
carpark at Ka Wai Chuen in Hung Hom (hereinafter referred to as “the
H H
Carpark”). The 2nd Defendant and X waited at the Carpark, while the 3rd
I Defendant went home. Not long after, the 3rd Defendant and his younger I
brother the 1st Defendant joined the 2nd Defendant and X at the Carpark.
J J
After a brief discussion amongst those present, the 1st to 3rd Defendants and
K X left the Carpark together. K
L L
7. The 1st and 2nd Defendants then boarded a taxi near the
M Carpark. The taxi reached Ice House Street near the Hong Kong Diamond M
Exchange Building, and the 1st and 2nd Defendants alighted. They walked
N N
towards Lower Albert Road, with the 1st Defendant walking ahead. After
O walking for 3 minutes, the 2nd Defendant made a U-turn and walked O
towards Queen’s Road Central.
P P
Q 8. The 1st Defendant then approached the police on Lower Albert Q
Road in the vicinity of the Scene. The 1st Defendant made the
R R
representation to the police officers present that he had driven the Vehicle
S from his residence in Hung Hom to Lan Kwai Fong in the early hours of S
that day and had parked the Vehicle in Lan Kwai Fong, that he was the
T T
driver of the Vehicle, and had lost control of the Vehicle at the time of the
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
accident. He also stated that he had fled after the accident, and had now
C come back to face the consequences. C
D D
9. Later that day, the police arrested the 1st Defendant for the
E offences of dangerous driving and criminal damage. The police took the E
1st Defendant to the 1st and 3rd Defendants’ residence for house search. The
F F
3rd Defendant was not at home, and the key of the Vehicle was found at the
G house search. G
H H
10. The 2nd Defendant surrendered to the police on 29th July 2023.
I He was arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The 3 rd I
Defendant surrendered on 31st July 2023, and was arrested for conspiracy
J J
to pervert the course of justice and traffic related offences.
K K
11. I have found in the Reasons of Verdict that there was a
L L
common purpose, agreement or understanding between the 1st and 3rd
M Defendants, that the 1st Defendant shall return to the Scene and claim to be M
the driver at the time of the accident, and that the 2nd Defendant’s role was
N N
to accompany the 1st Defendant on the taxi and to a location in the vicinity
O of the Scene, so as to guide the 1st Defendant who was not present at the O
accident. The 3rd Defendant’s role was to lay low and avoid attending the
P P
Scene, as can be demonstrated by not boarding the taxi back to Central,
Q and not being at his residence when the police arrived later that day, and Q
leaving the Vehicle’s key at his home.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
12. I was also satisfied that the 2nd Defendant, together with the
C other Defendants, intended the actions and conduct of the Defendants to C
have the tendency to pervert the course of public justice, i.e. to allow the
D D
3rd Defendant to escape sanction for his criminal behaviour which includes
E the dangerous driving which caused the accident. E
F F
The 2nd Defendant’s Antecedent Statement and Mitigation
G G
13. The 2nd Defendant is 23 years old and has a clear record. He
H H
is a transport worker, and had been educated to Form 6. He lives with his
I parents. I
J J
14. It is submitted that the 2nd Defendant’s involvement is
K comparatively minor, and the Court is urged to consider the 2 nd K
Defendant’s youth, his clear record, his representation of Hong Kong in the
L L
Hong Kong Hockey Team, and his detention under police custody from
M 29th to 31st July 2023 after his arrest. M
N N
Sentencing Considerations
O O
15. The Court has considered all mitigation and mitigation
P P
documents, the authorities submitted, the 2 Defendant’s clear record, and
nd
Q his surrender to the police. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. I have considered both authorities submitted by the
C Prosecution and the comments from the Defence. The basic principles of C
sentencing this type of offence is stated in AG v Yeung Kwong Chi [1989]
D D
1 HKLR 266. It was held that the normal sentence for an attempt to pervert
E the course of justice was one of immediate imprisonment. In order to E
justify any non-immediate custodial sentence, abnormal circumstances
F F
must be present. Although clear record, good family background, a single
G fall from grace, the likelihood of leading a blameless life in future were all G
proper matters for consideration, they are by no means abnormal when put
H H
in the context of a crime of this nature so as to justify a suspended sentence.
I I
17. In the present case, the Defendants’ agreement if successful,
J J
had the result of not only allowing the 3rd Defendant to escape from his
K responsibility concerning Charges 1 (dangerous driving), 3 (driving an K
unlicensed vehicle), 5 (failing to stop) and 6 (failing to report), but also to
L L
escape from the liability for Charges 2 (driving while disqualified) and 4
M (using motor vehicle without third party insurance), with Charge 2 leading M
to an almost inevitable immediate custodial sentence. This was the reason
N N
for which they had engaged in the offence involving Charge 7.
O O
18. The misrepresentation was a carefully thought out and
P P
detailed plan. Although there is no indication as to the amount of police
Q manpower wasted on this misguided investigation direction concerning the Q
accident, it is to be expected that heavy input was made into investigating
R R
an accident involving an unexplained car crash at Justice Place.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
19. The Prosecution submitted the case of Secretary for Justice v
C Lee Ying Tung [2023] 3 HKLRD 667, which was a review of the sentence C
filed by the Secretary for Justice. The respondent’s husband was
D D
intercepted by the police while leaving their apartment, and alerted the
E respondent that there were police approaching, and not to open the door. E
Several minutes later, a bag of dangerous drugs was thrown out of the
F F
window from the apartment. The respondent was charged with perverting
G the course of public justice, and was sentenced to 84 days’ imprisonment G
after a guilty plea. It was stated that the general starting point for providing
H H
false account to the police investigating a serious offence is between 2 and
I 3 years; and for concealment of evidence, the same bracket of 2 to 3 years’ I
starting point applies. Upon review, the starting point of 3 years was
J J
adopted.
K K
20. I am of the view that, despite the present case having the
L L
element of providing a false account to the investigating police, although
M the offence involved crashing into Justice Place, it was not intended as a M
provocation to the authorities. It was no more than the 3rd Defendant losing
N N
control of the Vehicle and thereby committing the act of dangerous driving.
O As such, although it cannot be seen as a minor case, it is not very high in O
the spectrum of seriousness for this type of offence. Therefore I do not
P P
think a starting point as high as 2 to 3 years for this Charge is warranted.
Q Q
21. Of the culpability between the Defendants, I have found that
R R
rd
the 3 Defendant was the mastermind of the plan. But that is not to say
S that the 2nd Defendant should be dealt with by sentences other than S
immediate custodial sentence. I accept that he has nothing to gain from the
T T
offence. Yet despite his good record and background, he should know the
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
seriousness, if not the penalty, of tampering with the course of justice. I
C do not agree that his role was relatively minor, as his role was a crucial one, C
st
without which it cannot be ensured that the 1 Defendant would be able to
D D
approach the vicinity of the Scene and make the intended false
E representation to the police. E
F F
22. The Defendants’ plan involved a good deal of premeditation
G and planning, and cannot be acts of impulse or the result of lack of G
consequential thinking. I am of the view that there are no abnormal or
H H
exceptional circumstances justifying imposing anything other than an
I immediate custodial sentence. CSO and suspended sentence are therefore I
not suitable options.
J J
K 23. I shall therefore adopt the starting point of 16 months for K
Charge 7. The 2nd Defendant had been convicted after trial. I do not find
L L
any reason in the mitigation that would justify lowering of the starting point.
M The 2nd Defendant shall be sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
O O
P P
Q ( Peony Wong ) Q
Deputy District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V